3
$\begingroup$

It is not hard to see that, given one sample from a univariate unit-variance Gaussian $X\sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,1)$ with unknown $\mu$ s.t. $0<|\mu|\leq 1$, one can simulate one draw from a "Bernoulli" random variable $Y\in\{-1,1\}$ with $|\mathbb{E}[Y]| = \Theta(|\mu|)$. (Basically, just take $Y=\operatorname{sign}(X)$.)

Is it possible to do the converse (even allowing extra randomness, independent of the sample)? That is:

Given one realization of some random variable $Y\in\{-1,1\}$ with (unknown) $\mathbb{E}[Y] = \mu$, output $X\sim \mathcal{N}(\nu,1)$ s.t. $|\nu| = \Theta(|\mu|)$.

I conjecture that to be impossible (I have some mild contrived evidence), but I don't really see how one would go about proving that.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Suppose you had such a randomized procedure that takes a value in $\{-1,1\}$ and outputs a real number. Let $P$ and $Q$ be the output distribution on input $+1$ and $-1$ respectively.

Consider the extreme case of $\mu = +1$. In this case $Y = +1$ for sure, and you are outputting a sample from $P$, which means that $P$ should be an $\mathcal{N}(\nu, 1)$ distribution for some $\nu$ with $|\nu|$ being $\Omega(1)$. Similarly, the other extreme of $\mu=-1$ tells us that $Q$ is a $\mathcal{N}(\nu', 1)$ distribution for some $\nu'$ with $|\nu'|$ being $\Omega(1)$.

But now, for $\mu=0$, you are outputting the uniform mixture of two normals, which cannot be a normal distribution unless $\nu=\nu'$. In the latter case, you get $\mathcal{N}(\nu, 1)$ for some $\nu$ bounded away from zero.

Thus you cannot satisfy this requirement simultaneously for $\mu\in \{-1, 0, 1\}$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That was fast—thanks! $\endgroup$ – Clement C. Dec 16 '20 at 0:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.